Transcript Energy and Global Change

Energy and
Global Change
State of the Planet
“A dynamic interactive system of bio-geo-chemical cycles
that are being significantly influenced by an emerging
intelligent life-form.
This life-form has some serious limits in cognition and
self-awareness as well as a number of other intellectual
and physical constraints.”
Michael Crow
Impact of Humankind
•
•
•
•
•
•
Eliminated 20% of all bird species
Increased atmospheric CO2 by 30%
Using over 50% of freshwater runoff
Overexploiting over 60% of marine fisheries
Increasing atmospheric CH4 by 140%
Introduced over 70,000 synthetic chemicals into the
environment
W. Clark
Impact of Humankind
"The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human
influence on global climate."
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
United Nations
Most projections now suggest that the degree of change
will become dramatic by the middle of the 21st century,
exceeding anything seen in nature during the past
10,000 years.
Challenges of the 21st Century
• Eliminating weapons of mass destruction.
• Preventing the population of the planet from
exceeding 9 billion people.
• Sharply reducing the global rate of loss of
biodiversity.
• Meeting global energy needs while limiting the
atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.
Global Warming
There is now general agreement that the Earth’s
temperatures are increasing, and the primary cause is
humankind.
15 of the warmest years worldwide have occurred since
1980. It is likely that 1998 was the warmest year in the
last thousand (from ice cores).
The Arctic ice cap is melting. So are the glaciers.
The sea levels are rising (10 inches in the past century).
With rather high confidence one can now say that global
warming is being experienced and that greenhouse-gas
increases from human activities are its primary cause.
The Greenhouse Effect
CO-2 remains in the atmosphere for a century or more. Such
greenhouse gases trap some of the solar radiation that the planet would
otherwise radiate back to space, creating a blanket that insulates and
warms the lower atmosphere.
The inevitable result of pumping the sky full of greenhouse gases is
global warming. This dries the planet by evaporating moisture from the
oceans, soils, and plants. Additional moisture in the atmosphere
provides a swollen reservoir of water that is trapped by all precipitating
weather systems, including tropical storms, thunderstorms, snowstorms,
and frontal systems.
Human activities aside from burning fossil fuels also wreak havoc. The
conversion of forests to farmland eliminates trees that would absorb
carbon from the atmosphere. Fewer trees also mean greater rainfall
runoff, thereby increasing the risk of floods.
Global Climate Disruption
Before the industrial revolution, the concentration of
carbon dioxide was about 280 parts per million by volume
(ppmv).
Today we are releasing about 7 billion tons of carbon into
the atmosphere each year, and the atmospheric
concentration has increased to 370 ppmv. At the current
rates, carbon release would increase to 15 billion tons per
year with concentrations at 550 ppmv by 2050.
The impact on climate would be extraordinary … and
perhaps not reversible (runaway greenhouse effect).
Global Energy Use
Current Energy Supply System
• In 2000, world’s 6 billion people used about 450 exajoules
(billion-billion or 10^18)
– 35% from oil
– 23% from coal
– 20% from natural gas
– 6% from nuclear power
– 6% from hydropower
– 13% from biomass fuels (e.g., wood)
• About 30% of primary energy was used to generate electricity.
Fossil fuels provided 63%; nuclear provided 18%.
• The United States, with 4.5% of world’s population, accounts for
23% of global energy use and 27% of electricity production.
Current Energy Supply System
• In 2000, world’s 6 billion people used about 450 exajoules
(billion-billion or 10^18) (1 EJ ~ 1 quad = 10^15 BTU)
– 35% from oil
– 23% from coal
– 20% from natural gas
– 6% from nuclear power
– 6% from hydropower
– 13% from biomass fuels (e.g., wood)
• About 30% of primary energy was used to generate electricity.
Fossil fuels provided 63%; nuclear provided 18%.
• The United States, with 4.5% of world’s population, accounts for
23% of global energy use and 27% of electricity production.
The Current Situation
Importance of energy:
Energy costs typically absorb 7 to 10% of the cost of living (and are
key factors in inflation and recession).
Energy is a major contributor to dangerous and complex
environmental problems at every scale.
Energy issues can trigger issues in international security, from conflict
over oil and gas reserves to nuclear weapons proliferation.
In 2000, more than 75% of world's energy was produced from fossil
fuels.
The Current Situation
The reliability of energy supplies is decreasing because of political
instability and increasing demand, at a time when many countries are
becoming more dependent on those supplies. The United States is
heavily dependent on foreign oil, and natural gas prices have doubled
in recent months. Overall consumption of electrical power is
increasing, and is likely to rise from 40% to 70% by 2050 (think
computer!)
During the next decade, the role of renewables, particularly wind and
biomass, will increase, but not nearly enough to fill present
requirements. The U.S. and other developed countries will find it
necessary to devote far more attention, including increased R&D, to
multiple risk and energy trade-offs involving coal, nuclear power,
petroleum, natural gas, and electric power.
Coal
Coal
U.S. coal reserves are enormous–an order of magnitude
larger than oil and gas reserves (140,000 EJ).
Unfortunately, coal is a dirty, inconvenient fuel for most
uses which causes significant environmental impact and
danger to public health due to pollutants released during
the direct combustion (flyash particulates, SO-2, CO-2,
NO), materials handling problems, and the environmental
and health problems associated with coal mining.
Oil
Oil and Gas
During the first half of the 20th Century our society made
a transition from wood and coal as its primary energy
sources to petroleum and natural gas.
These resources are limited. Some believe that the
prospective scarcity of oil combined with the instability of
the regimes of oil-rich nations will cause a steep rise in
hydrocarbon prices over the next two decades.
Some believe that depletion is now close to the
psychologically important half-way mark. But optimists
believe that htis turning point is still decades away, and
that with new technologies, reserves are far larger
(particularly with tar sands).
Oil and gas
Exxon believes "that for the next 25 to 50 years, the oil
available to the markets is for all intents and purposes
infinite."
But scarcity is not the only reason why the world might
move away from oil. The unnerving votality of oil prices,
together with growing concern about the environmental
imapct of hydrocarbons, is already spurring the search for
alternatives.
"The stone age did not end because the world ran out of
stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs
out of oil!"
M. King Hubbert’s Peak

U.S. oil production peaked in the 1970s


When will global oil production peak?




The imbalance between domestic production and consumption
has led to our extreme dependence on Middle East oil
Certainly some time during this century.
Within next few decades?
Within next decade?
Note the disruption that will occur when global
consumption exceeds production!
Natural Gas
• Natural gas has become the preferred fuel for new
generating capacity.
• Thus far, at least, the discovery of new reserves is
increasing faster than our consumption.
• Gas-turbine plants are relatively inexpensive to build
and much cleaner than coal.
• But, natural gas supplies are limited, and the cost of
natural gas fluctuates widely (currently about twice as
expensive as coal).
United States Energy Vulnerability
The fraction of U.S. oil imports from the OPEC cartel
and, within it, from the politically volatile Persian Gulf,
is likely to increase over time.
Currently the U.S. gets half of its oil imports from
OPEC and half of that amount from the Persian Gulf.
The Persian Gulf has almost 30% of world oil
production, 43% of exports, and 65% of proven
reserves.
Biomass
Biomass
• Wood, crop residues, dung, and other combustible
wastes are the main source of energy for a majority
of the world’s population (65 EJ or 15%).
• 60% of biomass supplied by wood, most of which is
cut and burned faster than it is replaced.
• Furthermore, biomass contributes to CO-2 buildup,
both through deforestation and combustion.
Hydroelectric
Hydroelectric Power
• One of only two sources of carbon-free energy (the
other being nuclear fission) currently producing a
significant fraction of the world’s energy supply
(currently 7% or 27 EJ per year).
• Further expansion is limited by geography and
environmental impact. (In fact, pressure is building to
dismantle dams and return rivers to natural flows.)
Geothermal
Geothermal
The thermal energy contained in the upper 10 km of the
earth’s crust can be tapped in a variety of ways: dry
steam fields (e.g., the Geysers plant in California); wet
steam fields, pumping fluids through hot igneous rocks
associated with recent volcanism, and tapping
geopressurized basins containing large volumes of
trapped geofluids under abnormally high temperature and
pressure.
Problems
• Fields are of limited magnitude and rapidly depleted
over a few decades.
• Geothermal fluids withdrawn from the earth contain a
variety of noxious substances, including CO-2, H2S,
arsenic, mercury, and even radioactive materials. (In
fact, the Geysers plant has the highest radioactivity
level of any power plant in the United States!)
• The environmental and safety impact of geothermal
plants are very high.
Renewable
Energy
Sources
“Renewable” Energy Sources
• Numerous possibilities
– Wind Power
– Solar Power (both thermal and electric)
– Ocean Thermal Gradients
• BUT, currently renewables supply only about 4 EJ
(1%) of world’s energy source.
• Lots of problems, caused primarily by highly dilute
nature of energy concentration.
Wind Power
Wind Power
• Wind power has been harnessed for thousands of
years, but only in last decade to generate electricity
(currently 0.14 EJ).
• Only 5% of earth’s land area is windy enough to costeffectively produce electricity.
• Intermittent and unpredictable nature.
Solar Power
Solar Power
• Currently produces only about 0.5 EJ, primarily
through solar thermal collectors.
• Solar resource is huge. About 500,000 EJ falls on
earth each year. But it is highly dilute, and the
challenge is to capture and deliver solar energy
economically.
• Two approaches:
– Passive solar thermal collectors
– Solar generated electricity (e.g., photocells)
The Principal Constraint: Cost
The diffuse, intermittent nature of solar power (and other
renewables) requires extremely capital intensive systems in
order to capture and convert this energy to useful forms.
It typically takes 20 to 30 years to pay back the capital costs
of solar installations (compared to 3 to 4 years for coal and
nuclear plants). (In fact, some claim that one can never
recover either the costs or the total energy invested in
building the plants.)
Nuclear Fission
Nuclear Fission
• The only current carbon-free energy source that could be
deployed on a significant scale.
• Currently 434 nuclear reactors providing 17% of world’s
electricity (350 GW) and 6% of its energy.
• In nuclear-intensive scenarios, the number of nuclear plants
would increase to 1,000 to 2,000 by 2050, supplying 70 to 110
EJ or 30% to 40% of world’s electricity.
• Conventional uranium resources could easily support a high
growth scenario for at least 50 years. Furthermore, recent
studies have suggested that uranium could be extracted from
seawater for less than $100 per kilogram.
• The best U.S. nuclear plants produce electricity at lower cost
than the best coal-fired plants. In Japan, nuclear generated
electricity is somewhat less expensive than fossil-fuel generated
electricity.
A new environmentalist view of nuclear power
Many people in the environmentalist community are
concluding that nuclear power needs another look, since it
is the only non-carbon emitting form of energy capable of
massive expansion.
They realize there are problems: safety concerns,
radioactive waste disposal, proliferation of nuclear
weapons technology, and cost (the most serious).
But the growing belief is that all of these problems are
solvable, and that we should be investing far more than
we are today in making nuclear power a viable,
expandable energy option once again.
The Breeder Reactor
• By converting fertile materials such as U-238 into
fissile materials such as Pu-239, the breeder reactor
will be characterized by an essentially limitless fuel
supply.
• However, it will require the use of fuel reprocessing
to extract plutonium and fabricate it into fuel
elements for further use.
• Since the breeder reactor is based on plutonium, it
raises concerns about the possibility of proliferation
of nuclear weapons capability.
Nuclear Fusion
Approaches
• Magnetically-confined thermonuclear fusion
• Intertially-confined thermonuclear fusion
– Laser Fusion
– Particle Beam Fusion
• Other? (“Cold Fusion”)
The Challenges
• We have yet to demonstrate “proof of principle” for controlled
thermonuclear fusion, in which we are able to generate more energy
from fusion reactions than we expend in heating, confining, or
compressing the fusion fuel. (This would be analogous to Fermi’s
achievement of the first fission chain reaction in 1942.)
• The technological challenge of engineering a controlled thermonuclear
reactor into a safe, economically competitive power plant looks
formidable indeed.
• Although a fusion reactor would have essentially an infinite fuel supply
(it could “burn the oceans”), it will depend on exotic materials that are
more limited in supply.
• And, like fission reactors, fusion reactors will emit intense radiation and
produce radioactive materials that must be handled and disposed of …
Hydrogen
Hydrogen
Hydrogen is technically NOT a fuel. It is an energy
"carrier", since more energy has to be invested in
producing it that it will generate.
But hydrogen is the idea energy carrier: It is abundant, it
has a simple chemistry, and it produces energy perfectly
cleanly.
Through the use of gas transport or fuel cells, it could
become the ideal transportation "fuel".
The big question: Where do we get the energy to produce
it, e.g., by stripping the carbon out of today's hydrocarbon
fuels.
Another way to look at things
The toward "decarbonization" is the heart of
understanding the evolution of the energy system:
Wood burns about 10 carbon atoms for each H.
Coal approaches parity with 1 or 2 C per H
Oil has 1 C per 2 H's
Natural gas (methane) has 1 C per 4 H's
And the ultimate is burning hydrogen itself.
Distribution of energy
The distribution of coal and oil is clumsy.
The preferred configuration for energy distribution is a grid
that can be fed and bled continously at variable rates:
i) gas pipelines
ii) electrical transmission networks
Here, again, we see that hydrogen and electricity are the
ideal energy carriers, since they can function on a grid.
Ad Hoc Committee
on Hydrogen Initiatives
Preliminary Report
Charge
To conduct a quick scan of various approaches to building
a significant energy research program addressing
alternative energy supplies with a particular focus on
hydrogen options.
Key approach: A SWOT (strengths-weaknessesopportunities-threats) analysis of possible initiatives.
Motivation


There are few contemporary challenges facing our
nation more threatening than the unsustainable nature of
our current energy infrastructure.
Every aspect of contemporary society is dependent upon
the availability of clean, affordable, flexible, and
sustainable energy sources.
The Challenge




Our current energy infrastructure, heavily dependent
upon hydrocarbons, is unsustainable.
Our environment is seriously impacted by current energy
sources.
The security of our nation is threatened by our reliance
on foreign energy imports.
Both the nation and major research universities such as
UM must give a far higher priority to energy research.
Committee Membership











James J. Duderstadt, Science and Engineering, UM (Chair)
Arvind Atreya, Mechanical Engineering, UM
Francois Castaing, Chairman of the Board, New Detroit Science Center
James Cook, Chief Technology Officer, Retired, CMS Energy
James Croce, Chief Executive Officer, NextEnergy
Robert Culver, USCAR Director, Retired, Ford
Gregory Keoleian, School of Natural Resources & Environment, UM
James MacBain, College of Engineering, UM
Johannes Schwank, Chemical Engineering, UM
Levi Thompson, Jr., Chemical Engineering, UM
John R. Wilson, TMG/ENERGY


Lynn Cook, Support Staff, UM OVPR
Lee Katterman, Support Staff, UM OVPR
Criteria
1.
2.
3.
Achieving national energy independence
Minimizing impact on global climate
Addressing the particular needs of the transportation
industry.
A Note…
Although the initial charge was aimed at assessing roadmaps to a
possible “hydrogen economy”, with an emphasis on hydrogen as
an energy fuel, the committee believed it important to broaden
this discussion to include an array of alternative energy options
characterized by zero- or low-hydrocarbon emissions.
This discussion involved long-term energy options for both
stationary and mobile applications.
Themes of Tomorrow
"The whole history of mankind's use of energy is the history of
decarbonization of fuels. As societies have grown weathier, they
have shifted from dirty solid fuels with a high carbon content
(wood, coal) to liquid hydrocarbon fuels with a lower content, and
ultimately to clean-burning gases."
Energy Survey 2001, The Economist
Decarbonization
"The most powerful force for decarbonization through the ages
has been the market, and it is no accident that the historic
decarbonization trend has stalled in recent decades, when
governments have taken to meddling in energy markets. It was
only in the 1950s when governments began to tinker with price
controls and later, reacting to cries of shortages by the energy
industry, allocated fuels among sectors of consumers, that we
began to recarbonize the energy system."
A Hydrogen Economy
By 2050 consumption of natural gas and hydrogen will surpass
that of coal and oil, and by the end of the century these gases will
have more than 75% of the global energy market.
Hydrogen is the ideal energy carrier: 1) It is abundant. 2) It has a
simple chemistry. 3) It produces energy perfectly cleanly.
But how do we make it? We need a central energy source such as
nuclear power!
Distributed Energy
Distributed Energy
The bright new hope is micropower, e.g., fuel cells or
microturbines, where power is distributed close to the enduser rather than distant stations.
Advances in software and electronics hold the key to
micropower, as they offer new and more flexible ways to
link parts of electricity systems together.
In the end, thought, it may not be the technology that
determines the success of distributed generation but a
change in the way that people think about electricity.
Distributed energy will mean the transition from an
equipment business to a service business.
Energy Resources
M. King Hubbert’s Peak

U.S. oil production peaked in the 1970s


When will global oil production peak?




The imbalance between domestic production and consumption
has led to our extreme dependence on Middle East oil
Certainly some time during this century.
Within next few decades?
Within next decade?
Note the disruption that will occur when global
consumption exceeds production!
Estimated Reserves
Coal
140,000 EJ
Oil
10,000
Gas
10,000
Uranium (LWRs)
5,000
Uranium (Breeders)
120,000
Bituminous
20,000
Tar Sands
10,000
Other Gases
10,000
Uranium (seawater)
2,400,000 (480 M EJ in
breeders)
Estimated Reserves
Coal
140,000 EJ
Oil
10,000
Gas
10,000
Uranium (LWRs)
5,000
Uranium (Breeders)
120,000
Bituminous
20,000
Tar Sands
10,000
Other Gases
10,000
Uranium (seawater)
2,400,000 (480 M EJ in
breeders)
In 2000, the world produced 450 EJ of primary energy.
Conservation
Conservation
Since energy has always been cheap and plentiful, our
society has tended to substitute energy-intensive
technologies for labor-intensive processes. Today the
average American consumes energy at a rate some 6 times
the world average and over 80 times the average in
underdeveloped nations. Clearly is room for greater energy
efficiency.
Approaches
• Technological advances in energy production and
utilization.
• Shifting our society away from energy-intensive
goods and services (e.g., the automobile…).
• Placing artificial constraints on economic growth,
since there is a strong, direct correlation between
economic growth and energy consumption. (As a rule
of thumb, the drop in energy consumption by one
barrel of oil a day eliminates one job in the labor
market!)
Global Warming
Global Warming
If the oil-import picture for the U.S. and the world in the
decades ahead is unsettling, the climate-change
implications of the steep continued rise of global carbon
emissions under business as usual are positively alarming.
The atmospheric concentration of CO-2 today is nearly 33%
above its pre-industrial level (370 ppmv). There is no doubt
that this increase has been mainly due to human activities
(initially deforestation, but in last 100 years, overwhelmingly
from fossil fuel burning).
The changes in the Earth’s climate now being experienced
are on track to predictions (increase of 1 degree F, sea level
up by 4 to 10 inches, more unstable weather patterns).
Carbon dioxide concentrations
Historically, the atmospheric concentration of carbon
dioxide rose from a pre-industrial level of 280 ppmv in
1750 to 370 ppmv in 200, driven in the first part of this 250
period mainly by deforestation and in the latter part of the
period mainly by fossil-fuel combustion.
If we continue at the current pace of fossil fuel
combustion, concentrations will reach 550 ppmv by 2050,
over 700 ppmv by 2100, and likely continue to 1100 ppmv
soon thereafter.
Besides CO-2 increase, atmospheric concentrations of
other greenhouse gases is increasing (methane, nitrous
oxide, tropospheric ozone, and halocarbons).
What evidence do we have?
• The 7 hottest years since 1860 occurred in the 1990s.
• Observed increases in CO-2 track almost perfectly with
known increases in human CO-2 production.
• Ice core data show that natural fluctuations in
atmospheric CO-2 hav been only plus or minus 10
ppmv over past 10,000 years.
• Carbon-14 analysis of tree rings dating back to 1800
confirms this.
• Recent Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (with
average temperate increases twice that of rest of
planet…6 C?
How serious is this?
“The global climate change caused by human activity and
above all by fossil fuel combustion is both the most
dangerous and the most intractable environmental
problem that civilization faces.
It is the most dangerous because climate creates the
envelope of environmental conditions within which all
other processes that operative in support of human wellbeing have to be able to function.
It is the most intractable of environmental problems
because its fundamental changes are so deeply
embedded in our way of life.”
John Holdren
Implications of business-as-usual
• Global average surface temperature up 2 to 6 C by
2100 (UN IPCC-2001)
• Sea level would be 20 to 100 centimeters higher
• Might see a multimeter sea-level rise from
disintegration of the polar ice sheets and a runaway
greenhouse effect from the decomposition of methanebearing compounds.
• (NOTE: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment suggestions
this could begin this century!)
Global warming vs. “climatic disruption”
Simply to talk about “global warming” (or the greenhouse
effect) does not do justice to what is going on because the
average warming conceals large changes in patterns and
extremes of hot and cold, wet and dry, the tracks of storms
and so on.
We really need to understand this as disruption.
Even the term “global climate change” which better
describes the variety of things going on, does not
adequately express that we are messing up this system
on which our well-being depends.
The impact … and the intractability
The potential for disruption by the greenhouse effect is
staggering: reductions in the productivity of farms and
forests and fisheries, increases in the frequency and
intensity of destructive storms, changes in the geographic
distribution of disease organisms, rises in sea level
imperiling coastal property, losses in biodiversity, etc.
But the investment in world energy systems, mostly a
fossil fueled energy system, is about $10 trillion at
replacement cost. The average lifetime of these energy
facilities is 30 to 40 years. Hence you cannot change the
system rapidly.
The “know nothing, do nothing” faction
“While it is generally true that the people in this fction don’t know
anything, they are wrong in asserting that nobody else knows
anything and that we shouldn’t do anything.
We don’t know everything about this subject, but we know a lot. And
what we know suggests that the downside risks of failing to deal with
it are very large.
There is a significant probability of serious damage to our economy, to
the public health, to the function of ecosystems.
The real question: In the face of very large downside risks from failing
to address this problem, and the very modest costs of addressing it, is
it prudent to do nothing?
You don’t need a rocket scientist or a Nobel laureate economist to
answer that question!”
John Holdren
The Current Situation
The reliability of energy supplies is decreasing because of political
instability and increasing demand, at a time when many countries are
becoming more dependent on those supplies. The United States is
heavily dependent on foreign oil, and natural gas prices have doubled
in recent months. Overall consumption of electrical power is
increasing, and is likely to rise from 40% to 70% by 2050 (think
computer!)
During the next decade, the role of renewables, particularly wind and
biomass, will increase, but not nearly enough to fill present
requirements. The U.S. and other developed countries will find it
necessary to devote far more attention, including increased R&D, to
multiple risk and energy trade-offs involving coal, nuclear power,
petroleum, natural gas, and electric power.
Impact of Near Term Business as Usual
• The U.S. will be increasingly dependent on oil from the Middle
East.
• Regional air-pollution impact of fossil-fuel combustion, will grow
alarmingly in much of world.
• Disruption of global climate by CO2 will become the dominant
environmental problem of 21st Century, imperiling productivity of
farms, forests,and fisheries, rendering many of the world’s cities
unlivable in the summer, putting coastal property at risk from
rising sea level , and imposing a panoply of other adverse
impacts on human health, property, and ecosystems.
• Economic growth will be curtailed by constraints on growth of
energy supply from environmental costs.
Reducing Carbon Emissions
Current recommendations are to set a target to reduce
2010 carbon emissions by 10% below 1990 levels.
But over the longer term we are talking about deeper
reductions. To stabilize the atmospheric concentration of
CO-2 at twice its pre-industrial levels, we would have to
cut today’s emissions worldwide by at least 50%.
To stabilize the concentration at anywhere near where it is
today, you would have to cut fossil fuel carbon dioxide
emissions a factor of more like 5 or 6 fold. Under a
business-as usual scenario, contributions from noncarbon emitting sources would have to increase 15-fold in
the 21st century to stabilize greenhouse gases.
Approaches
• Constraints (e.g., Kyoto Protocol)
• Technology
– Conservation
– Non carbon emitting (nuclear power, renewables)
• Economic Incentives
– Taxes on carbon emissions
– Allowing constraints to be bought and sold
Policy Efforts
• Earth Summit in Rio: Nations agreed to pursue
stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1995):
Concluded that global warming was occurring.
• The 1997 Kyoto Protocol: An effort to get developed
nations to take actions to reduce emissions, setting
targets and timetables. (The United States has thus
far failed to ratify this agreement.)
The Kyoto Protocol
• Calls for reducing carbon emissions 5% below 1990
levels by 2012.
• But U.S., as world’s biggest emitter, has to reduce
7% below 1990s. With the robust economic
expansion of the past decade, this would amount to
30% below “business as usual”. Possible costs as
much as 4% of GDP.
• U.S. has not (and probably will not ratify) the Kyoto
agreements. Instead prefers “buying out” of
constraints with other less polluting nations.
What else can be done?
• Reduce the energy-intensive nature of our society
(although this will be very difficult in view of the
energy needs of developing nations).
• Reverse deforestation by planting trees and other
CO-2 absorbing vegetation.
• Capture and store CO-2 (much as radioactive waste)
• Make a massive shift to non-carbon-emitting energy
sources such as nuclear power, perhaps coupled with
new technologies based on a hydrogen and a liquid
fuel.